posted 05-15-2012 08:17 AM
I came across this cover signed by Stu Roosa.

I believe this is an insurance cover. But the date of the postmark is not the launch date, but the date of the lunar landing. Does that make a difference?

What would the value of this be since it's only signed by Roosa as opposed to the whole crew?

capoetcMember

Posts: 1814From: Newnan GA (USA)Registered: Aug 2005

posted 05-15-2012 08:48 AM
It is certainly a nice cover, and it is certainly an insurance-type cover. But... what leads you to think that it is an insurance cover? Is there something other than appearance?

To the best of my knowledge, all of the Apollo 14 insurance covers were signed by the whole crew. Also, you probably need some kind of documentation even if you have a Bishop cover signed by the whole crew and cancelled on the launch date since it is possible for similar covers to have been signed post-flight.

So, unless you have some other information about this particular cover, from appearance alone it is not an insurance cover.

RossMember

Posts: 410From: AustraliaRegistered: Jul 2003

posted 05-15-2012 09:45 AM

quote:Originally posted by capoetc:To the best of my knowledge, all of the Apollo 14 insurance covers were signed by the whole crew

How about eBay item (unsigned Apollo 15 insurance cover) 170842732644 from Florian. He states

The unsigned insurance covers are much rarer than the signed ones!

Or was there a difference with Apollo 15 covers.

idrvballMember

Posts: 150From: Burke, VA USARegistered: Mar 2009

posted 05-15-2012 09:47 AM

quote:Originally posted by capoetc:So, unless you have some other information about this particular cover, from appearance alone it is not an insurance cover.

I am much more knowledgeable about autographs than insurance covers.

However, what leads me to believe that this is an insurance cover is, in doing some research, I found that only the covers with the wings under the emblem were reserved for the crew to be used as an insurance cover.

But, if you say appearance alone does not make it an insurance cover, and I guess you are talking about the wings being on there, how can you tell what is and isn't an insurance cover?

Bob MMember

Posts: 1492From: Atlanta-area, GA USARegistered: Aug 2000

posted 05-16-2012 08:17 AM
John ("capoetc") has described very well what constitutes an actual Apollo insurance cover. Also an excellent report www.spaceflownartifacts.com/flown_apollo_insurance_covers.html has been presented concerning what strict requirements are necessary for a cover to be considered an actual insurance cover.

For years, our hobby has been too liberal and loose in identifying insurance covers. Ideally, for a cover to be considered an insurance cover, it should have some connection with a crew member or a family member. A notation on the back of the cover or a LOA would be ideal. Pete Conrad and lately, Al Worden, for two, have added documenting information on the back of their insurance covers.

Unfortunately, surely the large majority of insurance covers have no such notation or sny provable connection with any astronaut or family member. Probably the majority were distributed years ago without any notation or evidence that they were kept as insurance covers by the families.

Unsigned or single signed covers would not qualify as actual Apollo insurance covers in several ways. And referring to an unsigned or single signed cover as an insurance cover would not be correct and perhaps the often-used "insurance-type" cover would be proper in many cases.

Covers primarily created for use as insurance covers by the astronauts were also greatly distributed to dealers and collectors and surely many were signed post-flight and appear similar or identical to actual insurance covers.